Lessons and learnings from nearly two decades of policing stalkers

I have spent almost two decades trying to improve the way police deal with stalking, and it’s exhausting. When it comes to stalking, the stakes are always high. Whilst the worst-case scenario is not always inevitable, stalkers are on a journey that has a catastrophic destination looming in the distance. To better understand the ongoing trauma and fear experienced by victims, and how professionals can better respond, we must look at the mechanics of stalking not merely as isolated incidents but as an intricate structure specifically designed to trap victims.

The Architecture of Control

A spider’s web is an intricate structure, carefully designed to entrap its prey. The spider, patient and relentless, spins its web with intent, weaving strands that serve both as a snare and a means of control. This is precisely how many stalkers operate. They construct a network of tactics that ensnare the victim, making escape increasingly difficult.

The stalker is an architect of control who adapts their behaviour depending on how their victim moves. Some stalkers pursue their targets directly, making their intentions obvious. Others are more patient, lying in wait while the victim gradually becomes more entangled, tightening the strands at just the right moment to ensure escape is impossible. Each strand of the web represents a different stalking method, such as cyberstalking, surveillance, threats, unwanted contact, property damage, and the use of third parties to harass and intimidate. The more strands there are, the stronger the web becomes.

Through this relentless construction, stalkers cultivate a terrifying sense of omnipresence and proximity. The victim feels the psychological weight of the stalker constantly bearing down upon them, regardless of physical distance. Once caught in the web, a victim faces immense challenges. Just as an insect’s struggles only serve to entangle it further, resistance without effective support can provoke escalation. Many victims find that when they attempt to assert boundaries, the stalker reacts with increased intensity. Stalking wears victims down mentally, emotionally, and physically until they can no longer fight.

The Systemic Reinforcement of the Snare

The power of the web is not just the work of the stalker alone. Its strength and effectiveness depend heavily on external factors, specifically the societal, legal, and institutional systems that can either help the victim break free or reinforce the trap.

A web is most effective when its prey has nowhere to go. If police fail to intervene adequately, if courts delay action through bureaucratic red tape, or if society dismisses stalking as merely a crime of passion, the web remains intact and the victim feels increasingly isolated and powerless. The implications of such systemic failures are profound, as they can lead to a cycle of victimisation where the perpetrator feels emboldened, while the victim feels trapped in a situation that seems inescapable. In many cases, this lack of support from law enforcement and judicial systems can contribute to a sense of hopelessness among victims, making it even more difficult for them to seek help or take action to protect themselves.

Even well-meaning actions can have the opposite effect. If victims are told to simply ignore their stalker or avoid making a fuss, rather than being provided with practical strategies for safety and empowerment, the strands of the web are strengthened rather than cut. Such advice often minimises the severity of the situation and can inadvertently reinforce the stalker's power by suggesting that the victim's experience is not valid or worthy of serious attention. This can lead to further victimisation, as the individual may internalise the message that they are overreacting or that their fears are unfounded.

This multifaceted dynamic highlights the complex interplay between the actions of the perpetrator and the responses of society at large, illustrating how a victim's experience can be profoundly influenced by the environment surrounding them.

Advice for Perpetrator-Facing Practitioners

For forensic psychologists, police officers, and legal professionals dealing directly with offenders, it is useful to focus on the stalker's deliberate construction of this web. We must stop issuing informal warnings or words of advice to these individuals. We do not give words of advice to a burglar or a terrorist, and we must not entertain the notion that all stalkers will be deterred by a quiet word from a uniformed officer. Responding to a sophisticated campaign of psychological terror with an unofficial chat fundamentally misunderstands the psychology of stalking and the gravity of the threat.

Furthermore, practitioners must resist the urge to attribute such functional behaviour solely to clinical diagnoses. While it might provide psychological comfort to reach for a diagnosis to explain away relentless cruelty, diagnosis is not destiny. Stalkers are often alchemists of perception who transform their intense emotions into a narrative that justifies their actions. It is the stalker's choices, their sense of entitlement, and their determination that spin the web, not merely a psychiatric profile. Understanding risk requires us to focus on their patterns of behaviour and motivational factors rather than searching for neat clinical boxes that excuse the harm they cause.

When addressing the management of perpetrators, we must critically consider the true viability of therapeutic interventions. While psychological support or clinical treatment might appear suitable on paper, we have to ask whether these interventions are genuinely viable or viable at this moment in time? When a stalker is deep within their own perception alchemy, they might seem entirely convinced of their own righteousness and operate under a sincerely held belief that their actions are entirely justified. After all, this might serve as a psychological shield, soothing the stalker from the stark reality of the harm they have caused or notions of inadequacy.

I have noticed that the most meaningful therapeutic interventions required a willingness to reflect and a genuine acknowledgement of harm, not only to their victims, but to themselves. Therefore, instead of relying on therapeutic interventions that demand an insight (one which they do not or cannot yet possess), the immediate focus often needs to be on disrupting their behaviour and helping them make better, safer choices. Yet this is not achieved by imposing shame, as shame frequently fuels resentment, deepens grievance fuelled thinking, and ultimately escalates the risk of violence.

Over the years, I have seen several powerful positive outcomes from interventions which sought to engage perpetrators in structured work focused on lateral thinking, impulse control, and the stark reality of the long-term consequences they face. By shifting the conversation away from their subjective moral failings and toward the practical, objective implications of their choices, practitioners can encourage significant behavioural compliance. This in turn can reduce the threat and pave the way for a deeper therapeutic and more schematic type work – the type of intervention that is ultimately required when the stalker is genuinely ready to dismantle their distorted reality.

Advice for Victim-Facing Practitioners

To dismantle the web, we need to cut its threads. Victims can rarely break free alone. When a victim reports stalking, they are asking professionals to help them cut through the snare.

Getting the basics right is non-negotiable. We must take victims seriously by listening without interruption, validate their experience by assuring them they are not imagining things, and keeping them updated. Regular updates are protective because they give victims a sense of control in a situation where all control has been ripped away by the stalker's web.

When interviewing victims, professionals must avoid victim-blaming questions. Asking why a victim replied to a message or failed to block an account implies fault and fails to understand the reality of being trapped. Instead, practitioners should use conditional questions, asking what would have happened if the victim had not replied. This approach reveals the coercive dynamics at play and demonstrates how the stalker's control has systematically eroded the victim's freedom of choice.

Early intervention and strong legal protections, such as Stalking Protection Orders in England and Wales, are vital tools to weaken the web and reduce the stalker’s ability to maintain control. However, these protections require rigorous procedural diligence.

If you work with victims and / or perpetrators of stalking, ask yourself: are you cutting the web, or are you allowing it to hold victims in place?

Hope is not a luxury, nor is it a passive waiting room. Hope is a gritty and practical act of resistance. The best professionals do not offer vague reassurances but instead provide a clear map of actionable steps to help victims reclaim their lives. By understanding the intricate architecture of stalking, holding perpetrators fully accountable, and providing unwavering support to those ensnared, we can begin to dismantle the web and prevent the catastrophic destinations that too many victims have already been fast-tracked into.